DNC staffer screams at Donna Brazile for helping elect Donald Trump - Polidicks

[QUOTE=froztshock;51349725]Honestly I've been thinking of getting directly involved in the DNC after this shitshow, though I don't know if that's actually possible given my current future plans. Probably a pipe dream, but it should give you an idea of how fucking pissed I am. Suffice to say, if I ever [i]do[/i] do it, I'd fight tooth and nail to keep this kind of 'by the script!' shit out, either for Hillary or whoever else these fucks try to pony up and shove down the throat of the electorate.[/QUOTE] In my experience, it almost impossible to change systems once set. The system changes you. It would be easier to support and work with the green party, instead of working with institutionalized rot Start anew. Not try to reset.

[QUOTE=Guriosity;51355630]In my experience, it almost impossible to change systems once set. The system changes you. It would be easier to support and work with the green party, instead of working with institutionalized rot Start anew. Not try to reset.[/QUOTE] I have my own serious problems with the green party, and likewise I don't think they'll be competent in the timeframe that I want them to be even if there were to be a push for them to eclipse the democrats. Likewise, there are still too many people who have confidence in the democrats. There's a narrative among young liberals that this is entirely because there are too many racists in the united states, and they're going to need real convincing that it's the democrats that dropped the ball here. For that reason, I don't think that just joining a third party is going to be as effective as you think. I honestly fear the prospect of having to convince AT LEAST half of Americans to lose confidence in the democrats as a whole over the course of the next four years than I do the prospect of forcing the core of the democratic party to either resign or take a good, long, painful look in the mirror.

[QUOTE=Dr.C;51351944]They shilled the hell out of Clinton so this is unexpected. I guess they're just opportunists that go where the wind blows them and right now the prevailing wind is against Clinton and the DNC[/QUOTE] They're opprotunists that realize their clicks are generated by further-left-of-center readers (that is, young, internet using liberals in the Western world), and right now the public sentiment of those people is largely turned against Hillary (for losing) when it's not busy bunkering down for the Trump presidency.

[QUOTE=Guriosity;51355630]In my experience, it almost impossible to change systems once set. The system changes you. It would be easier to support and work with the green party, instead of working with institutionalized rot Start anew. Not try to reset.[/QUOTE] Starting anew is a much much harder path in this country as there is far too much inertia that keeps the two main parties in power. In the wake of losing control of both the presidency and congress, pushing for change within a party that has been shown to be out of touch and unable to compete is far easier and far more likely to be successful in a short amount of time. Mind, neither path will be easy.

[QUOTE=Goberfish;51349706]Tulsi Gabbard seems like a perfect choice. Of course it's way too early for anyone to know for certain but she certainly seems positioned to carry the banner, what with her actually supporting Sanders (unlike Warren) and stepping away from the DNC mess[/QUOTE] Obviously late on this reply but I seriously doubt Tulsi Gabbard could win the presidency. Not enough Americans would trust a Hindu. Religion does still play a large part in politics, unfortunately. And if you thought the birther movement under Obama was bad, it would be even worse with Gabbard.

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;51356590]Obviously late on this reply but I seriously doubt Tulsi Gabbard could win the presidency. Not enough Americans would trust a Hindu. Religion does still play a large part in politics, unfortunately. And if you thought the birther movement under Obama was bad, it would be even worse with Gabbard.[/QUOTE] Obama got elected and then re-elected, so I'd give Gabbard a chance. More and more people that care less about religion or how foreign a name sounds have been coming of age since Obama got elected 8 years ago, and they'll make up a powerful section of the electorate if a candidate appeals to them.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;51349562]I really wish the Bernie supporters would have called out the DNC's obvious corruption and primary rigging when it was happening.[/QUOTE] Where the hell have you been for the last ten months dude

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;51356590]Obviously late on this reply but I seriously doubt Tulsi Gabbard could win the presidency. Not enough Americans would trust a Hindu. Religion does still play a large part in politics, unfortunately. And if you thought the birther movement under Obama was bad, it would be even worse with Gabbard.[/QUOTE] Gabbard and Sanders would certainly wreck anyone the GOP would be currently offering.

I will say that once it was obvious that Bernie was going to place nice, he was doomed. The high road wasn't going to work ever with the DNC or Clinton. It's exactly how they thrive and undermine to maintain the establishment elements they want to keep in. He did get pretty lit around the end though, but it was too little to late.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51356641]I will say that once it was obvious that Bernie was going to place nice, he was doomed. The high road wasn't going to work ever with the DNC or Clinton. It's exactly how they thrive and undermine to maintain the establishment elements they want to keep in. He did get pretty lit around the end though, but it was too little to late.[/QUOTE] People who say this have no idea what they're talking about, Bernie being divisive would've ended very poorly for him. It would've confirmed the "outsider who has nothing to do with our party" narrative. The odds were always stacked agaisnt him, and playing nice has proven to be a smart decision for the future. Imagine if from the start he was fully attacking Clinton and still lost the primary, then Clinton's election loss would've been completely blamed on him. If the election loss was considered completely Bernie's fault the progressive democrats would've been screwed in the party for decades.

[QUOTE=SelfishDragon;51356758]People who say this have no idea what they're talking about, Bernie being divisive would've ended very poorly for him. It would've confirmed the "outsider who has nothing to do with our party" narrative. The odds were always stacked agaisnt him, and playing nice has proven to be a smart decision for the future. Imagine if from the start he was fully attacking Clinton and still lost the primary, then Clinton's election loss would've been completely blamed on him. If the election loss was considered completely Bernie's fault the progressive democrats would've been screwed in the party for decades.[/QUOTE] I don't mean go Trump, but it wouldn't have hurt for him to keep pressuring Clinton on the hard points like her obvious change on stances, email scandals, or call out how much she was aligning her views to match him, all so she could say, "Well I also support this!" x 52,421 times. I get your stance on why it was important for him to maintain a complete high road so that he can do change now, but I still maintain my point that the high road was a unwinnable position. If we could go back in history, I truly would have wanted to see what a full on attack from Bernie would have looked like in changing the election.

[QUOTE=ArchXeno;51349500]And we all thought the Republican Party was the one that needed reform. Matter of fact, they could use some reforming as well.[/QUOTE] wait till day 1 of congress when the never trump and the pro-trump factions have to lead together.